Bayu Suseno as part of the finance division of PT Autoliv after giving his statement in the judicial review hearing of Law on Tax Court, Tuesday (28/11) in Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing on the judicial review of Article 1 number 12 and Article 35 paragraph (2) of Law No. 14/2002 on Tax Court (Tax Court Law), Tuesday (28/11). The hearing on the deadline for appeals in the tax court was scheduled to hear the statements of the House of Representatives (DPR), Expert, and Witness presented by the Petitioners, but DPR and the Expert were unable to attend. In the case No. 78/PUU-XV/2017 two witnesses were presented, namely Marsal and Bayu Suseno. 

In the statements of witnesses counseled by Syawaludin as the attorney of the Petitioner, Marsal explained the process of receiving letters from PT Pos Indonesia, as a PT Autoliv employee who received letters. "We accept and sign the receipts. Usually [in one transaction], one receipt is for several letters. Then [they] are directly distributed to the finance division," said Marsal.    

Then, in the statement of the next witness, Bayu Suseno as part of the finance division of PT Autoliv conveyed the reason for appeal, gaps in appeal value expected by the company, and the appeal process in the tax court. "In the 2013 accounting, about 2.8 billion [of tax overpayment] was approved [by us], while [DJP approved] 1.5 billion. The margin of 1, 3 billion was submitted for appeal. With this, we do not have much time, where we should have been able to process it [if we had enough time]," explained Bayu before the Panel of Justices. 

The case filed by President Director of PT Autoliv Indonesia Junius M.S. Tampubolon claims that Article 1 number 12 and Article 35 paragraph (2) of the Tax Court Law are ambiguous on the calculation of the deadline of appeal set at 3 months from the reception date calculated from the postal stamp of delivery. The Petitioner conveyed that his tax appeal petition was not accepted as a result of different references in the calculation of the deadline resulting in legal uncertainty for the Petitioner. 

Reason for Appeal Rejection

In response to the witness statement presented by the Petitioner, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo requested further clarification from Bayu on the follow-up financial measure by PT Autoliv when receiving tax returns until filing a letter to the court for an appeal. "Mr. Bayu who handles the tax, does the delay of the filing refer to the appeal or other formalities?" Suhartoyo asked. 

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo deemed the deadline described in the law being reviewed by the Petitioner fulfilled. Therefore, Justice Suhartoyo wanted to get confirmation from the witness on the implementation of reception date and grace period filed by the Petitioner resulting in legal uncertainty for the Petitioner. 

At the end of the trial, Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman stated that the next hearing was scheduled for Monday, December 11, 2017 at 11.00 a.m. to hear statements of Parliament and Expert from the Government’s side. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)